Chevrolet Cruze Forums banner
1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
It was a cold Sunday morning on April 27, 2014 when theSouth Bend Region of the SCCA hosted its first autocross points event on theTire Rack’s test track this year.Itrained early and the 45[SUP]o[/SUP] east wind howled at 20 mph with gusts to30.Temperatures warmed to 65[SUP]o[/SUP]during the day, but the wind picked up to gusts of nearly 40 mph.

Sixty-six drivers reported with cars such as a recentlyhome-built Spectre Super 7 and a 1974 Austin Mini; one guy was dumb enough toshow up with a 2012 Cruze ECO.Eachdriver enjoyed six runs that day, 3 before lunch and 3 after.After my 3-year campaign in a moderatelywell-prepared 2010 V6 Camaro, the ECO was a quantity unknown to me in thisapplication.Additionally, the ECO had justreceived a set of 225 45 VR 17 Michelin Pilot Super Sport tires on its forgedAlcoa wheels in anticipation of this event.

The performance of the otherwise show room stock manualtransmission ECO was surprising on this stage in several ways.Run 1 went by in 47.399 seconds with allelectronic controls engaged.The carfelt well balanced, neutral in sweeping turns, and snappy during turn-in andtransition.The car is surprisingly maneuverable.The next five runs were completed with theelectronic controls disengaged.Wheel spinand wheel hop limited 1[SUP]st[/SUP] gear acceleration over the start line,which is no shock for a manual transmission.More surprising was the car’s propensity for 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] gear wheel spinduring turns and transitions on the rest of the course.This problem persisted through the 3[SUP]rd[/SUP]run, after which my brain made an unconscious adjustment to the car.Runs 3, 4, and 5 all elapsed in the low47s.Not until Run 6 came my best timeof 46.587 seconds after a few things clicked.This is not the first time that my last run of the day wasquickest.At least I didn’t hit a coneon this last run.

The Cruze ECO is not a bad autocross ride based on thisfirst impression.The open frontdifferential will be limiting in the future, yet the car has really good overalldynamics.Being a former C5 Camaro guy, timesof the Camaros were of interest to me.It is hard to resist pointing out that the Cruze bested every Camaro onthe first run and a couple on their second runs.Save for one, the Cruze didn’t keep up afterthe Camaros warmed their tires, but one might place part of the blame their426+ hp, high torque, and limited slip differentials.The brand new Pilot Super Sports gave theCruze an early advantage, but it could also be said that the Cruze left a loton the table that day.It never cameclose to spinning out and never ploughed through a turn.The Trifecta tune is on its way. :smile:


FS - 'F Street' (times in seconds)


2014 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE:47.909 47.209 46.314 44.651 45.509 44.665 44.651
2013 Chevrolet Camaro 1LE:49.855 46.658 46.211 44.879 46.365 45.091 44.879
2013 Chevrolet Camaro SS 1LE 48.844 47.034 45.666 45.369 48.41647.145 45.369
2002 Chevrolet Z28 Camaro:47.923 47.428 46.522 45.791 47.121 46.658 45.791
2010 Chevrolet Camaro SS:49.625 48.332 48.131 47.375 47.675 47.775 47.375

GS - 'G Street’

2012 Chevrolet Cruze ECO:47.399 47.395 47.131 47.108 47.057 46.587 46.587

For those wanting the full results:http://www.sbrscca.org/solo/2014_points/Points_1/index.html.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,859 Posts
that red Camaro is beast AF!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I just had to chime in. I find my 2014 LT cruze gutless. How can a car like this enter a race of any kind is beyond me. My 2012 f150 would blow past cruze at any speeds any day. I find it the worse car I have ever owned. It is also the smallest thought. I also find it has a lot of road noise. Sorry I had to bash the cruze but I had to mention how very little power I find it has. Yes I do have the 1.4 turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
I just had to chime in. I find my 2014 LT cruze gutless. How can a car like this enter a race of any kind is beyond me. My 2012 f150 would blow past cruze at any speeds any day. I find it the worse car I have ever owned. It is also the smallest thought. I also find it has a lot of road noise. Sorry I had to bash the cruze but I had to mention how very little power I find it has. Yes I do have the 1.4 turbo.
Worst car you ever owned? Must be nice to be to have only owned top end cars. The noise levels of the cruze are almost non existent, so I don't get your complaints. Other cars in the same class are loud as anything inside. Unless there's work done to the f150 I find it hard to believe it could beat a Cruze from a 30 roll, but really it's not a power plant. The handling is what makes the Cruze competitive. I guess to you not fast with lower hp is a garbage car. Gutless my car is not maybe you got a lemon, or an auto?
 

·
Lyrical Wordsmith
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
I just had to chime in. I find my 2014 LT cruze gutless. How can a car like this enter a race of any kind is beyond me. My 2012 f150 would blow past cruze at any speeds any day. I find it the worse car I have ever owned. It is also the smallest thought. I also find it has a lot of road noise. Sorry I had to bash the cruze but I had to mention how very little power I find it has. Yes I do have the 1.4 turbo.
1) a stock Cruze is not meant for racing. It's meant to save gas.
2) I'm 6 ft tall. I fit just fine.
3) F150 may FEEL like it will beat it. But it wont.
4) I agree with road noise but I had a 2011
5) get your Cruze tuned bro you won't look back

--Posting this from my toaster--
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
Stock 0-60 times with the automatic are slower than a 1/2 ton 4x4 truck with a V8, well so are the 1/4 mile times.

2011 cruze 1.4T auto(lower gearing) 0-60MPH 8.8-9.2seconds, 1/4 mile embarrassing
2012+ cruze 1.4T auto 0-60 9.5-10.5 seconds, worse than above.

2012 F-150 5.0L 0-60 6.8 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.6(the ecoboost is even faster).

This type of racing though its not about straight line performance but being able to take a corner at high speed or being able to accelerate out of the corner, two things the cruze does really well for what it is. What it isn't is fast.

EDIT:
Here is a video showing the slowness, this 2012 looks like 10-10.5 seconds 0-60mph. Tested a friends and mine on a 95F day with the AC on, both were around 11.5 seconds 0-60mph. That's as slow as a Toyota prius C.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zEh0mH-Dnc
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
I will admit it does take corners very well and can move around traffic but all it does when you punch it is red lines. No get up and go at all. Some of you might want to take a ride in a real truck to see the power difference.
As for room. I'm 6.4 and no one can sit in the backseat behind me at all. Worst leg room ever in a car. As for the noise. I can hear every last bump in the road and can also hear the noise the tires makes. I had it only 7 months and had it advertised for sale for $6000 less than what I paid for it not including tax and not even one reply.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,917 Posts
I'm 6.4 and no one can sit in the backseat behind me at all. Worst leg room ever in a car. As for the noise. I can hear every last bump in the road and can also hear the noise the tires makes.
Most compact cars you would not fit into at all. I agree though my rear seat passengers would need their feet chopped off at the knees to fit behind me. You said above you have a 2014 LT, by the noise you describe I suspect you have a 1LT. Those stock firestones are making all that noise your hearing.

I switched tires last fall & definitely don't miss the thunking sounds over even sometimes small bumps, it happened every single time over expansion joints. Heck some roads it was like I was riding in a drum.
 

·
Registered
2014 Cruze 1LT with Tech and Convenience Pkgs.
Joined
·
349 Posts
You need to look at the Focus and a few others then for rear seat room...they are WORSE than the Cruze.

But you know...when you're only 5'7, it doesn't really matter as much.

As for gutless...it's faster than my Cobalt was stock for stock. With just a tune this car will PROBABLY beat my Cobalt that had header, downpipe, cat-back, 2.4L IM, LSJ TB, Injen CAI, Trifecta Tune. Add DP and MP to this car and I'm way ahead. Which is all the power I need for a DD...plenty of fun. Handling..stock for stock..this car easily beats the Cobalt. The Cobalt had upgraded LCA's, sway bars front and rear, Pedders springs, upgraded shocks and struts, front strut bar, and a few other things I can't think of...that car HANDLED after that.

This car...I have the UR front and rear strut bars so far and it's good. I have to add my rear lower UR bar then order the front lower...and lower the car...it will be superior to the Cobalt in handling as well. I'm doing coilovers this time around though, no lowering springs. Do it right.

Handling is my biggest thing in cars...I have never owned a fast car...I've been in a number of them, but I haven't owned one...it's great if you can get on a track...I'd get too many tickets for stupid driving. Someday I'll have my Porsche though...5-10 years. Mid life Crisis at 40 probably. Plus by then my son will be learning to drive...haha.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
I just need to add my two cents now. Buying a 1.4 liter engine and thinking that it would be faster than a 5.0l v8 is just rediculous. However the cruze makes great output per liter at almost 10hp per tenth of a liter its much better than the ford pick up. Not to mention handles better and gets much better gas mileage. although owning the eco manual i can pull away from automatic cruzes pretty easily so it does make a difference what model you have
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Where do You think You could spend those extra seconds which You could save by accelerating faster? Or driving faster generally?

I have a Range Rover with 3,5 V8 and though even that is not a fast car it still is faster than my Cruze, but I bought my Cruze for traveling and commuting using less fuel. Range Rover has a consumption of about 17-18 l/100 km, Cruze 6,5-7,0 l/100 km.

I had earlier a habit to travel from southern Finland to Finnish Lapland or Northern Norway for fishing trips, 1000-1500 km in one day driving and then I realized that if I drive 80 km/h or 100 km/h, the difference in 1000 km is only about 2 hours and 15 minutes and no one can keep it 100 km/h in average. Have to stop for coffee and eating etc., so the benefit for driving faster is minimal.
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top